Ripping Apart Einstein

Following:

This "flexible/fluid" - "Rest Frame" could form these too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interplanetary_Transport_Network

Maybe time behaves like a fluid too. And those gravitationally determined pathways through space, stretch the time-fluid.

Time is a human abstraction, It is a comparison of physical phenomeon in motion; we know it not by any other means.

If we take a pendulam clock to Jupiter the pendulan will fall faster and the hands of the clock will go around faster. Can you say that time goes faster? No one can only say that the gravitational forces that effect the mechanics of the clock make the workings of the clock go faster.

If we take an atomic clock to Jupiter can we say that time goes slower? No, we can only say that the mechanics of the clock are effected by the Physical reality of Jupiter; by the denser electromagnetic fields that permeate everything and as such slow down the workings of the atomic clock.

If one uses Lorenz's model, but asume the ether is the electrmagnetic fields that extend from all partical masses, one can explain all relativistic and Quantum Mechanical phenomena.

The MM experiment and its conclusion were/are misplaced . Aether does exist. The MM experiment supposed that the aether would generate a 'wind' across the surface of the earth as the earth moved through it. The aether isn't static like static air. Aether moves toward mass. The MM experiment could never detect the aether 'wind' because the MM experiment looked in the wrong direction...the MM experiment always looked for aether as if it were moving across the surface of the earth. It doesn't move that way, so it can't be detected that way. It moves toward mass...it moves toward the center of mass. Aether flow is what we call gravity. The Mossbauer experiments show this. Aether movement toward mass is gravity.

I guess i have some reading todo ;)

Thanks miker & Phil.

I have Petr's paper, but I will confess I had not gotten around to reading. His papers back in 2004-6, where he proposes a K-theoretic approach to Dp-brane theory I read repeatedly. In this work Petr illustrates how solid state (like) physics with Fermi surfaces have homotopy and K-theoretic quantum numbers. I suppose I will try to read in the near future Petr's paper Quantum Gravity at a Lifshitz Point in the near future.

I will register some disappointment with this however. I have indicated here and elsewhere that general relativity and quantum mechanics have different notions of time. Relativity defines an invariant time according to proper time or an invariant interval, while quantum field theory imposes wave equations on spatial surfaces with a local arrow of time. This is a coordinate condition required to specify the initial data for a QFT wave equation, where the associated time is not an invariant, but is fixed by a freely chosen gauge-like condition. So there are two notions of time that are not compatible. I have thought in the spirit of Hegel there must exist a dialectic of two opposites or dualities which define a consistent whole. In its basic conceptual framework the notion of breaking Lorentz symmetry seems not to fit this bill.

In a condensed matter physics analogue the lattice has to be treated according to some group structure. Bloch waves then have a periodicity determined by this symmetry, such as a space groups or crystallographic symmetry, and in lattice gauge theory there are Mantin actions with similar properties. Yet this lattice and its symmetries might in be a gauge-like or coordinate condition. If so then the space group is a subgroup of a more general symmetry. It appears that Petr is saying the lattice symmetry if "fixed," using the solid state analogue. I think that the lattice structure determines connection terms, where in an elliptic complex one must take "connections modulo group actions," so for connection in Λ^1(M) there is a sequence

Λ^1(M) -- > Λ^1(M)/G --d-->Λ^2(M)

The action will then be appropriate for a Polyakov path integral formulation, and we might then avoid what seems to be a hurtful violation of spacetime symmetry.

Cheers LC

\

Time is what the clock measure. put synchronized clocks one on the top of the tower and one at the foot of the tower after a while put the two clocks one next to other and compare it's time.

What a lovely breath of fresh air this site can be sometimes!

Good marks to Paul and Miker, and the M&Mx did not invalidate the 'dragged' ether (but NOT 'all pervasive') that Sagnac supported as well as so much else;

http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:YQp037P-VIgJ:scholar.google.com/+stellar+aberration+anomaly&hl=en&as_sdt=2000 Observation of Ether Drift in Experiments with Geostationary Satellites

But all does rather demonstrate the degree of flow as very negligible Miker, and not 'inward'.

And Paul, you say perhaps "The photon travels at a constant speed relative to the Sun_space-vacuum_Earth, and the Electron_vacuum_ Proton." ..but MM is only locally valid, within our galaxy.

Petr's paper is massively contortional but has to be politically as he's telling string theorists there is an ether, so the reported malaise with SR is true. I sense the long due paradigm change, but the catalyst is still hidden.

So Paul, how can the photon pass the sun at 'c' wrt the sun heading for us, which we know it does as Shapiro and many others have checked, then meet our planet doing 1,000k round the sun and also be found doing 'c' here!? Let's take a simple 'reality' view and ask if it changes speed.

So if it did where would it do it? Obviously at the point it doppler shifts! So let's check where that is with radio signals from spacecreft. We find it's at the planetary shock. The anomalous region of dense oscillating particle activity, the standing 'bow wave' that aligns with the planets orbital vector despite what we're still teaching at Uni and the lateral battering from SMP's.

Petr may be close to the truth. Einstein may have been closer in his battle with Bohr in the name of Reality. He tried to close the gap, but perhaps should have looked the other way, even further towards reality;

A model of Discrete Fields (the 'DFM') based on his '52; space is actually "infinately many 'spaces' in relative motion", but with real regions of ether surrounding all collections of mass, in relative motion, with particle 'shock' boundaries. And 'c' is constant locally within each, because it changes speed and wavelength at the shocks to be so?

And yes Lawrence, all arrows of time, and space, would be local to all mass, from a single electron and it's shock cloud, proportional to velocity (so much for equivalence and contraction) upwards to galaxy clusters. - And yes Paul, and matter crossing the void would interacts with the ether. And all using the postulates of SR. - A catalyst?? - Or perhaps it's all too real?

Paper 3; http://vixra.org/abs/1001.0010

No new math is required for now. Please check if you can and give me any views.

Many thanks

Peter

I think some people have a bit of confusion here. This putative aether is different from the aether of pre-Einstein physics. This aether is more of a quantum effect or quantum field effect.

Cheers LC

Hi Lawrence

No confusion here. I agree entirely - It's currently proposed with no link to physical reality. My post suggests an option WITH one.

But it still is a 'quantum field effect', or to be precise, a quantum field, with effects. Re read in that vein and it should become clearer.

EINSTEIN LENSING

The question is asked in the article; can any model explain it. Yes indeed.

The anomaly is that Shapiro 'curved light track' delays, even with some gravitational dilation added, predict relative delays orders of magnitude lower than observed (spectroscopy). As this is also the only way galactic mass can be estimated some galaxies come out ridiculously solid!

A while ago delays of over 2 years were found! and, while we were fumbling around for a solution to that one, another of 3 years has just been confirmed!! This meets no current astrological model.

The DFM predicted exactly this (and predicts more) over a year ago! Feynman was right, 'Nature will always find a simpler way than man can imagine'. I posed the question to my 8yr old nephew recently, ..he got it right. Can any physicists out there in cyberspace shed preconception, stand back, think so simply and and see reality so clearly?

Have a try; Q; Light going through an intervening galaxy that's moving away from us arrives after light lensed round the outside. Why?

Best of luck. Peter

Yes, and a big part of Jacobson's work [along with certain collaborators...] is to look for aether-ish theories that pass current observational tests without having to invoke new interpretation of the data or potentially overlooked subtleties in the experiment.

Einstein lensing requires no aether theory. For a pretty complete discussion on Gravitational Lensing from a Spacetime Perspective, this should suffice.

Cheers LC

Miker,

Right. That being the case, the aether is not differentiable from the vacuum. Just as Einstein had it -- a superfluous concept.

Tom

Aether ....gravity mass or light constant.....the ideas of Stokes are interestings about the motion and the immobility of the light.

Thus the physical system is dynamic and the other is a infinite light above the physical laws.

Thus the time permits to the mass to polarise the flux of light inside this system.

Thus the special relativity in the physicality takes all its sense, and the aether behind is thus different.One is infinite, the other finite and in building.The aether don't interact in the physicality because the codes are there in the gravity since the begining, the rotations become essentials for the motion and the mass.

It is a spiritual and universal interpretation limited due to our physicality, indeed we are mass inside this system.....

To understand the physicality, it is to understand the aim of this infinite light of love.We are catalyzers , builders, creators,of the harmony, this aim between spheres.All is the same, light but with different rotating spheres which imply the specificity and the rule in time constant inside a 3D.

Sincerely

Steve

Dear Miker,

The aether exists but don't interact physically speaking, the codes of informations inside the main central spheres of gravity which rotate, them are the causes of the physicality , the aether interacts thus , paradoxal, no because it is by codes of becoming.

There you can encircle thus the difference between the infinity and the finite sphere in evolution towards the perfect harmony between cosmological spheres.

Regards

Steve

The aether, at least in the 19th century context, shifts itself in a way which makes it indiestinguishable from a spacetime vacuum. There is a sort of vacuum problem with quantum field theory and the cosmological constant. This paper by Petr's paper is most interesting from the perspective of what questions this raises. It is curiously similar in a way to the pre-Lorentzian notion of the aether with no spacetime symmetry, where Petr's theory involves a broken Lorentz symmetry. This seems to raise an interesting question than it does to advance a solution.

Cheers LC

Lawrence

Seems you may not have read it, it's not complete at all as it doesn't address the anomalous temporal magnitude. But it's not alone, in fact no-one sucessfully has. OK, back then I think the max delay was little over a year. Seriously anomalous, but nothing like as serious as the ones found since.

Most astronomers have been reticent to make themselves look foolish by even mentiong it let alone making a big deal of it! Interestingly it took probably our best female astrophysicist Evalyn Gates to break ranks and be honest in public;

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/07/13/guest-post-evalyn-gates-cosmic-magnification.

Of course we could stay head in the sand about it, but the sand's pretty busy with older mainsteam trogladites these days!

Occams razor, like Feynman, is correct, there is a simple solution. It's the same one that predicted the unexplaned quadrupolar assymmetry on the ecliptic polar from WMAP. Whether or not anyone will even look let alone recognise is a quite different question.!

(This signal is part of the search for intellegent life in the solar system).

Peter

This anomalous time problem is not a problem. Photons from a source will arc around an interposed gravity well with different proper distances. This fact is being used to calibrate the cosmological expansion.

Cheers LC

Lawrence

It's the exceptional depth and scale of the wells that's the issue Lawrence, which is why that theory has been questioned. Some galaxies would need to be pretty solidly packed with black holes, which completely conflicts with the observed evidence. Of course the left side of our brains doesn't like us living with paradox so many have been happy to accept unfalsifiable 'solutions'.

As I understand Ted's work it's very consistent with the Discrete Field Model, based on modified Horava gravity and Eistein Aether Theory with a tensor and dynamic vector field. The DFM only takes an extra step towards Einsteins beloved 'Reality' to link it up with Locality, allowing both postulates of SR as the anomalies are resolved at all scales by the physical quantum mechanism for equivalence.

So why should Ted want to avoid testing old interpretations and checking subtleties that may have been overlooked? We all know something is wrong with physics. If the model for an adjusted solution seems to match observation better than others should it not be further investigated?

Or should we continue in the mainstream, ignoring experimental evidence, observation and borne out prediction that doesn't agree with our 'beliefs', and let assumption and unfalsified theory rule our paradigms.

Do let me know if it's the latter as I'll need to change my testing procedures!!

One last question, and I know what Ted's answer would be; If a photon, as part of a wavefront, travels at 'c' across space, and doesn't meet any mass for eons, what is it travelling at 'c' with respect to?

Peter

The light which is deflected by intervening galaxy is not defected that strongly. The effect is really not that different from the deflection of starlight by the sun. The photons do not go deep into the gravity well. The gravity fields, or equivalently the spacetime curvature, is extensive and covers a large region, but these curvatures are rather modest.

Cheers LC